[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28638-28643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13817]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 951208293-7055-04; I.D. 110796F]
RIN 0648-AF01
Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Amendment 5 to the
Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and
Butterfish Fisheries; Resubmitted Measures
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement three provisions of
Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Atlantic Mackerel,
Squid, and Butterfish Fisheries (FMP) that were initially disapproved
but have been revised and resubmitted by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council (Council). These measures revise the overfishing
definition for Atlantic mackerel, establish criteria for a moratorium
vessel permit for Illex squid, and establish a 5,000-lb (2.27 mt)
incidental catch permit for Illex squid. The intent of these measures
is to prevent overfishing and to avoid overcapitalization of the
domestic fleet in these fisheries.
DATES: Effective June 26, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Copies of Amendment 5 and its supporting documents, and the
resubmission including the environmental assessment, regulatory impact
review (RIR) and initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), and
other supporting documents are available upon request from David R.
Keifer, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
Room 2115, Federal Building, 300 South New Street, Dover, DE 19904-
6790.
Comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or any other aspect of
the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule
should be sent to Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg, Regional Administrator, 1
Blackburn Dr, Gloucester, MA 01930, and the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), (Attention:
NOAA Desk Officer), Washington, D.C. 20502.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Myles Raizin, Fishery Policy Analyst,
508-281-9104.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Amendment 5 was developed in response to concerns regarding
overcapitalization expressed by industry representatives at several
meetings of the Council and its Squid, Mackerel, and Butterfish (SMB)
Committee in the early 1990's. Details concerning the development of
Amendment 5 were provided in the preamble to the proposed rule, which
was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1995 (60 FR
65618), and are not repeated here.
NMFS, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), reviewed
Amendment 5 in light of the administrative record underlying it and the
public comments received relative to the amendment and the proposed
rule. Based upon this review, the following provisions of the amendment
were found to be inconsistent with the national standards of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-
Stevens Act) and, accordingly, were disapproved: (1) The Illex
moratorium permit, (2) the use of long term potential catch to cap
allowable biological catch (ABC) for Atlantic mackerel, and (3) the
exemption from the minimum mesh requirement for the Loligo fishery for
a vessel fishing for sea herring whose catch is comprised of 75 percent
or more of sea herring. Details concerning the disapprovals were
provided in the preamble to the final rule implementing Amendment 5,
which was published on April 2, 1996 (61 FR 14465), and are not
repeated here.
At its June, 1996, meeting, the Council revised several of the
disapproved measures for resubmission. Management measures for an Illex
moratorium permit, an increase in the allowable incidental catch of
Illex, and a cap on Atlantic mackerel ABC were resubmitted. A proposed
rule to implement these measures was published in the Federal Register
on December 23, 1996 (61 FR 67521). The preamble to the proposed rule
described the measures. Comments were accepted through February 3,
1997. NMFS approved those measures on behalf of the Secretary on
February 21, 1997.
Under the final rule, a vessel will qualify for a moratorium permit
if 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex were landed from it and sold on
at least 5 trips between August 13, 1981, and August 13, 1993.
Additionally, a vessel that was under construction for, or was being
rerigged for, use in the directed fishery for Illex on August 13, 1993,
qualifies for a moratorium permit if 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of
Illex were landed from it and sold on at least 5 trips prior to
December 31, 1994. The Illex moratorium will terminate at the end of
the fifth year following implementation unless extended by an amendment
to the FMP.
The rule also implements an open-access incidental catch permit for
Illex squid. The catch allowance associated with this permit is 5,000
lb (2.27 mt) per
[[Page 28639]]
trip. This represents an increase of 2,500 lb (1.13 mt) over the
allowance proposed in the initial submission of Amendment 5. The
incidental allowance could be revised by the Council annually as part
of the annual specification process.
Finally, the rule revises the overfishing definition for Atlantic
mackerel to restrict ABC in U.S. and Canadian waters to that quantity
of mackerel associated with a fishing mortality rate of
F0.1, as recommended by the Northeast Fisheries Science
Center. The overfishing definition is otherwise unchanged, and still
maintains the requirement that ABC be specified to maintain a spawning
stock size of at least 900,000 mt in the year following the year for
which specifications are being developed. Based on the most recent
stock assessment for Atlantic mackerel (1994), this will cap ABC for
Atlantic mackerel at 383,000 mt.
Changes From the Proposed Rule
There are two changes from the proposed rule. Paragraph 648.4(a)(5)
is revised to be consistent with other Northeast regulations for vessel
permits, and the heading at
Sec. 648.8(a)(5)(ii) is changed to read Illex squid moratorium
permit (Applicable from July 1, 1997, until July 1, 2002.) This changes
the effective date of the Illex moratorium permit from the previously
proposed date of June 1, 1997, which appeared in Paragraph 648.4(a)(5)
of the proposed regulations, to July 1, 1997. This change come as a
result of delays in the publication of the final rule.
Comments and Responses
A total of four commenters provided 10 substantively different
comments on the proposed rule to implement the resubmitted measures.
The commenters were comprised of a representative of the East Coast
Fisheries Federation, Inc., representatives of the States of
Connecticut and Maine, and an individual representing Seafreeze, Ltd.
of Rhode Island and Lund's Fisheries, Inc. of Cape May, New Jersey. One
commenter supported the resubmitted measures for the Illex moratorium
permit while three opposed this measure. One commenter supported the
increase in the incidental catch allowance for Illex. One commenter
appended several Congressional comments opposing the Illex moratorium
permit. The substance of these comments are incorporated in other
comments. No comments were received regarding the cap on Atlantic
mackerel ABC.
Comment 1: One commenter asserts that the submission violates the
mandate in the Magnuson-Stevens Act to reduce regulatory discards since
catches of Illex may be mixed with Loligo to as much as a 50:50 ratio
in certain seasons. The commenter assumes that a large number of
vessels in the Loligo/butterfish moratorium fishery will not qualify
for the Illex moratorium fishery, and that discards of Illex in excess
of the bycatch allowance by these Loligo moratorium vessels will be
unacceptable.
Response 1: The commenter bases his comment about the seasonal
mixing of squid stocks on information supplied by an experienced
fishing vessel captain at the August, 1996, Council meeting. The
minutes of that meeting indicate the captain noted that by moving to a
different area or fishing at a different time of day or both, a vessel
operator can practically eliminate large bycatches of Illex and the
need to discard large amounts of that species. The captain was actually
making a point in favor of a bycatch allowance after attainment of 95
percent of the quota, a measure proposed in Amendment 6.
Comment 2: A commenter states that in other moratoria, the Council
has used the landing of 1 lb (.45 kg) of the subject species during a
time period as qualifying criteria for a moratorium permit, e.g., the
summer flounder moratorium permit. Since the adoption of the multiple
pound qualifying criterion for Illex and Loligo squid, the Council has
reverted back to 1 lb (.45 kg) of landing in its scup moratorium permit
qualifying criteria.
Response 2: The objective of the resubmitted measures for the Illex
moratorium permit is to prevent overcapitalization in a fishery that is
fully-utilized. The Council estimated that a 1 lb (.45 kg) of landing
qualifying criterion would prequalify a minimum of 295 vessels using
the August 13, 1981, through August 13, 1993, window. The Council noted
and NMFS concurs, that given that 19 vessels harvested approximately
17,814 mt in 1992, which represents 94 percent of the 1997 quota for
Illex, using a 1 lb (.45 kg) landing criterion would likely lead to
overcapitalization and threaten the conservation of the Illex stock.
Comment 3: A commenter estimates that 400 vessels will obtain the
Loligo/butterfish moratorium permit. To allow 400 boats into those
fisheries while excluding them from Illex will do nothing but place
enormous pressure on two species while providing no ``relief valve'' in
the third; and there will be no opportunity to take advantage of normal
cycles and fluctuations in resource availability and market--the
essence of the mixed-trawl fishery which the Council has pledged to
sustain.
Response 3: NMFS believes that those vessels which qualify for a
Loligo/butterfish moratorium permit represent the historic and directed
participants in the fishery. The same is true for the Illex fishery.
The Council demonstrated that the number of vessels estimated to
qualify for the Illex permit would have the ability to harvest in
excess of the entire 1997 quota under certain circumstances. The
Regulatory Impact Review prepared by the Council shows that allowing a
large number of new vessels to prosecute this fishery could cause
significant losses in income (8 to 10 percent) to existing harvesters
while putting the stock in jeopardy.
Comment 4: The NMFS letter of disapproval of February 9, 1996,
stated that ``the measure has discriminatory effects that render the
allocation of fishing privileges in the Illex fishery unfair and
inequitable.'' One commenter agrees and hopes NMFS will reject this
even-more restrictive and more discriminatory plan.
Response 4: The letter of disapproval voiced a concern about the
impact on vessels that routinely caught less than 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of
Illex per trip that would be eliminated from the fishery. The
administrative record underlying Amendment 5 did not address these
participants. This is the discriminatory effect that the Regional
Administrator asked the Council to address. The administrative record
supporting the resubmission indicated that if there were such
participants, they were minimal and only participated in the fishery on
an incidental basis. NMFS believes that increasing the incidental catch
allowance to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) for this species meets this concern.
Comment 5: One commenter complained that until last year, vessels
fishing from northern New England ports were unable to target this
resource because the use of small mesh nets which were necessary to
catch Illex squid in the quantities required to qualify for a permit
under the proposed rule, has been prohibited in the Gulf of Maine.
Response 5: Until April 1995, regulations in the Gulf of Maine did
not prevent a small mesh fishery for Illex from being prosecuted under
a number of different small mesh exemption programs which did in some
cases include restrictions on fishing by area by season. Therefore,
NMFS believes that vessel owners fishing in the Gulf of Maine had the
same opportunity to qualify for an Illex moratorium permit as vessel
owners from other areas.
[[Page 28640]]
Comment 6: One commenter was of the opinion that the qualification
criteria for an Illex moratorium permit unquestionably contravene some
of the most fundamental provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, most
particularly Section 301, National Standards 4 through 6.
Response 6: The qualification criteria are consistent with National
Standards 4 through 6.
National Standard 4 prohibits discrimination between residents of
different states. The qualifying criteria for a moratorium permit are
unrelated to the residency of an applicant. National Standard 5
prohibits the implementation of a management measure that has economic
allocation as its sole purpose. A moratorium using the qualifying
criteria will prevent overcapitalization that could lead to overfishing
of the resource. The 21st Northeast Stock Assessment Workshop (SAW 21)
determined that the stock of Illex is currently fully-utilized and
introduced new overfishing definitions for the squids to reduce the
risk of overfishing these species, which new information determines
lives for only 1 year.
National Standard 6 requires management measures to take into
account and allow for variations among, and contingencies in fisheries,
fishery resources, and catches. SAW 21 recommended a maximum optimum
yield (Max OY) of 24,000 mt for the Illex fishery. The vessels that
will comprise the moratorium fishery will be capable of taking this
amount, although historic catches have been below the recommended Max
OY. This will allow the Council to set annual quotas taking into
account a range of catches and contingencies based upon future stock
assessments.
Comment 7: A commenter provided several reasons for supporting the
Illex moratorium measure. He states that the criterion is appropriate
because it confers eligibility on participants with reasonable
dependence on the fishery in the specified period. He states that it
properly does not confer eligibility on vessel owners who entered the
fishery after that period.
Response 7: NMFS agrees.
Comment 8: In support of the Council proposal, one commenter stated
that a decision by NMFS to disapprove the Illex moratorium permit will
trigger a surge in speculative over-capacity as people fish to gain
history, thus causing a downward spiral in the industry and a shift in
fishing behavior to derby system practices.
Response 8: NMFS agrees.
Comment 9: The resubmission analysis demonstrates that the Illex
fishery is industrial in nature, with no real participation by small-
scale fishermen. The resubmission analysis (pg 14-15) states that 18
out of 53 vessels that reported landing Illex in 1993 represented 99
percent of the total harvest of the fishery for that year. The average
trip landed roughly 90,000 lb (40.83 mt) and the average landings of
the 19 vessel reference fleet was 130,000 lb (58.98 mt). Small-scale
fishermen are simply not involved in the directed fishery because it
occurs offshore and requires substantial investments in freezing
capacity or refrigerated seawater system capacity. The Council
nonetheless increased the bycatch allowance to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) to
ensure that the traditional dependence in the Illex fishery by small-
scale fishermen was fully accounted for.
Response 9: NMFS agrees.
Comment 10: One commenter observed that if the resubmission is
disapproved and an open access fishery is permitted to continue, any
effort by boats to diversify into the Illex fishery will now result in
direct losses to existing Illex participants. As more vessels come into
the fishery, the behavior patterns of the fishermen will begin to
shift, and we will be faced with a derby-style system. If the Illex
moratorium permit is approved, opportunities to diversify would still
exist. Mackerel prices on the world market are good, and mackerel and
herring both continue to be under-exploited. Vessel operators need to
spend time and effort with the growing mackerel processing industry in
Gloucester and New Bedford in order to develop stable markets for this
fishery if their interest is diversification.
Response 10: NMFS agrees.
Classification
The Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS, determined that
this final rule is necessary for the conservation and management of the
Atlantic mackerel, squid, and butterfish fishery and that it is
consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable law.
This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of
E.O. 12866.
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Council prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for
the resubmitted portion of Amendment 5. The IRFA concluded that this
rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities. No comments were received on the IRFA. The final regulatory
flexibility analysis (FRFA) consists of the IRFA, the comments and
responses in this final rule, most of which address in some way the
public's concerns about possible effects of this rule on small
entities, and the discussion below.
The analysis of the impact of the moratorium on the existing
participants in the directed Illex fishery is based on information
available for 1993, the last year of the moratorium qualification
period. The analysis shows that while there were 3,061 vessels issued
the open-access vessel permit required to harvest Illex squid, only 53
vessels landed Illex squid that year. All of the owners of these
permitted vessels are considered small business entities. Of those 53
vessels, only 26 vessels landed 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex on
at least one trip in that year. The average number of trips for these
vessels was 12.8 trips. Eighteen of those vessels accounted for 99% of
the total landings. The total landings for all vessels landing any
Illex in 1993 was 18,017 mt. However, 21 vessels accounted for 17,058
mt of the total landings. These landings represent nearly the entire
total allowable catch (i.e., quota) for the Illex fishery. Most of the
vessels that were issued the open-access vessel permit caught no Illex
at all. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the economic
reliance of these vessels on this species is non-existent. It is likely
that the owners of these vessels hold Federal permits for other
fisheries in which they are substantial participants and obtained the
open-access permit to preserve the option of retaining Illex if it was
encountered as a bycatch in these other fisheries. In light of the
foregoing, the directed fishery consists of a relatively small number
of vessels that land substantial quantities of Illex per vessel. This
analysis uses the 26 vessels that landed 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more on
at least one trip in 1993 as the best estimate of the existing
participants in the directed Illex fishery. Based on the average number
of Illex trips these vessels made in 1993 (i.e., 12.8), they easily
qualify for a Illex moratorium permit. These 26 vessels are referred to
as the ``reference fleet''. The other 27 vessels that also landed Illex
squid in 1993 are referred to as the ``fringe fleet''.
Amendment 5, as originally submitted by the Council, states that
decreased landings of Illex from fisheries in other nations are likely
to mean increased value for this species in future years. The value of
Illex has been generally increasing for several years due to decreasing
catches in other parts of the world. As a result, the U.S. Illex
fishery would certainly attract additional
[[Page 28641]]
participants if entry is not limited. The landings data for the fishery
demonstrate that the reference fleet is capable of taking the entire
total quota for this species. Data for subsequent years shows that more
vessels are entering the fleet and each vessel is taking less of the
``pie''. Since the directed Illex fishery typically involves large
vessels that land high volumes of Illex (the total catch for a
reference fleet vessel in 1993 was 1,522,695 lb), each additional
vessel participating in the directed fishery would generate a large
amount of Illex landings, creating the potential for a rapid increase
in overcapitalization and resultant pressure to overfish the resource.
Since there are a total of 52 vessels noted in Table 1 of resubmitted
Amendment 5 that would qualify for a moratorium permit, the capacity to
harvest the entire quota is extant in the fleet that would qualify for
a moratorium permit. It is not anticipated that there will be a sudden
shift of the additional vessels to the directed fishery, since this
sector of the fleet has not, to date, exhibited a great economic
reliance on Illex. The 27 vessel in the fringe fleet in 1993 made only
an average of 3.9 trips and landed an average of 1,155 lb of Illex per
trip. This pattern persisted in 1994. It is reasonable to conclude that
these vessels have Federal fisheries permits for other fisheries on
which they are more economically dependant. Also, some of owners of
these vessels may be deterred from entering the directed Illex fishery
due to the cost of acquiring refrigeration equipment necessary to
maintain the product quality demanded by on-shore processors. Because
of these reasons, the Council concluded that there is real
justification for a vessel permit moratorium program to control further
expansion of the directed fishery to avoid overcapitalization and
jeopardy to the stock. NMFS agrees.
NMFS landings data is used in the resubmitted version of Amendment
5 as the basis to estimate the number of vessels additional to the
reference fleet that would qualify for a moratorium permit under
various moratorium permit eligibility criteria including the one chosen
by the Council and implemented by this final rule. Five eligibility
criteria in addition to the criteria implemented by this rule (landings
of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) or more of Illex on at least 5 trips from August
13, 1981 - August 13, 1993) were evaluated. Each criterion was
evaluated for two qualification periods: August 13, 1981 - August 13,
1993; and August 13, 1981 - August 13, 1994. The five additional
eligibility criteria are: (1) landings of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) or more
of Illex on at least 5 trips; (2) landings of 20,000 lbs or more of
Illex during any 30-day period; (3) landings of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) or
more of Illex on at least 1 trip; (4) landings of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt)
or more of Illex on at least 1 trip; and (5) landings of 1 lb (.45 kg)
or more of Illex on at least 1 trip.
The number of vessels in addition to the 26 vessel reference fleet
that would qualify for a moratorium permit under the qualifying
criteria considered varies from a low of 26 under the eligibility
criteria implemented in this rule (resulting in a qualifying fleet of
52 vessels) to a high of 309 under an eligibility criteria of 1 lb (.45
kg) or more of Illex landed on at least one trip between August 13,
1981 and August 13, 1994 (resulting in a qualifying fleet of 335
vessels).
In order to assess the impact of this rule on small business
entities, an examination must be made of the impact upon the revenues
of the reference fleet under a range of assumptions about the
participation of the additional vessels. The reference fleet comprises
the small business entities that are the substantial participants in
the Illex fishery and most economically reliant upon it.
Because the qualification criteria adopted by the Council and
implemented by this final rule would add the smallest number of
additional vessels of all the alternatives considered, it is reasonable
to conclude that the qualification criteria implemented by this rule
would have the smallest economic impact upon the reference fleet of all
the alternatives considered. This will minimize the significant
economic impact on these small business entities while taking into
account the factors that the Council has to consider under section
303(b)(6) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act when limiting access to a
fishery. The underlying analysis in the resubmitted Amendment 5 shows
that if none of the additional qualifying vessels make any landings,
the revenue of the reference fleet would increase 5.3% if the 1997
quota of 19,000 mt is harvested. The increase is due to the fact that
in 1993 total catch was only 18,017 mt. This analysis also examines a
range of catch levels for the additional qualifying vessels and shows
that reference fleet revenues could decrease by as much as 10.4%.
The Illex moratorium regime that was proposed by the Council in its
initial submission of Amendment 5 was modified for the resubmission by
increasing the incidental catch allowance for non-moratorium vessels
from 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) per trip to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip and
by limiting the moratorium to a period of five years unless extended by
another FMP amendment (a ``sunset provision''). The criteria for
qualifying for a moratorium permit were not changed.
The original moratorium regime was disapproved because it
arbitrarily restricted vessels which have historically landed Illex in
amounts greater than 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) but less than 5,000 lbs (2.27
mt) per trip to an incidental catch allowance of 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt)
per trip. These vessels, which may have routinely caught more than the
2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) incidental catch allowance proposed, would not
qualify for a moratorium permit and would have had to reduce their
landings to comply with the 2,500 lbs (1.13 mt) incidental catch
allowance. While these vessels still will not qualify for a moratorium
permit, the increased incidental catch allowance will allow them to
harvest as incidental catch at least, and for most vessels, more than
their past historical levels.
The modified measure implemented by this rule was approved by NMFS
because the modifications (increase in incidental catch allowance to
5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip and 5-year sunset provision) addressed the
concerns that led to the initial disapproval. The incidental catch
allowance of 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) will allow sustained small vessel
participation at or above previous historic levels. Therefore, this
alternative compared to the original submission minimizes impacts on
small entities that do not qualify for a moratorium permit and thus,
cannot participate in the Illex directed fishery. Increasing the
incidental catch allowance to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip has no
negative conservation effect because incidental catches are counted
against the total quota. While this increase in the incidental catch
allowance likely would mean that less of the quota will be available to
those vessels qualifying for a moratorium permit, the effect on the
qualifying fleet likely will be small, since only between 27 and 35
non-qualifying vessels caught Illex in the 1992 through 1994 fishery
and it is unlikely any significant number of additional vessels will
elect to join the harvest because it is not economically feasible to
conduct a directed Illex fishery offshore at the low volume permitted
by the 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt) per trip limit given the price per pound for
landed Illex and the costs incurred during a fishing trip. In all
likelihood, raising the incidental catch amount to 5,000 lbs (2.27 mt)
per trip will be a factor only if the Illex move
[[Page 28642]]
inshore, a phenomenon which is uncertain from year to year.
Raising the incidental catch allowance higher than 5,000 lbs (2.27
mt) per trip was not analyzed since the 5,000 lbs limit eliminated the
arbitrary restriction discussed above. However, as the limit is raised
higher and higher more and more vessels could be lured into the
incidental catch fishery with consequent negative economic impacts on
participants in the directed fishery as the share available to them was
reduced. This would unjustly benefit new participants in the incidental
catch fishery at the expense of directed fishery participants with a
historic economic reliance on this species.
The sunset provision submitted as part of the Council's
resubmission will require the Council to examine capacity in the
fishery over the five-year moratorium period. Should the Council
determine that extension of the moratorium is necessary, an amendment,
including the analyses required by the Magnuson-Stevens and Regulatory
Flexibility Acts, will be required.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection-of-information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), unless that
collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
This rule contains a collection-of-information requirement subject
to the PRA. This requirement has been approved by the OMB under control
number 0648-0202. Public reporting burden for the collection of
information is estimated to average 30 minutes for an initial vessel
permit application and 15 minutes for a vessel permit renewal request.
The estimated response times include the time needed for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Public comment is sought regarding: Whether
this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has
practical utility; the accuracy of the burden estimate; ways to enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Send comments regarding burden
estimates or any other aspect of this data collection, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to NMFS and OMB (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 21, 1997.
Rolland A. Schmitten,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Services.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648, Subpart
B, is amended as follows:
PART 648--FISHERIES OF NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
2. In Sec. 648.4, paragraphs (a)(5)(ii) through (a)(5)(iv) are
redesignated as (a)(5)(iii) through (a)(5)(v), a new paragraph
(a)(5)(ii) is added, introductory text for paragraphs (a)(5) and
(a)(5)(i)(A), and newly redesignated paragraphs (a)(5)(iii) and
(a)(5)(iv) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.4 Vessel permits.
(a) * * *
(5) Mackerel, squid, and butterfish vessels - Any vessel of the
United States, including party and charter vessels, must have been
issued and carry on board a valid vessel permit to fish for, possess,
or land Atlantic mackerel, squid, or butterfish in or from the EEZ.
(i) Loligo squid and butterfish moratorium permit. (A) Eligibility.
A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit to fish for and retain
Loligo squid or butterfish in excess of the incidental catch allowance
specified in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section, if it meets any of
the following criteria:
* * * * *
(ii) Illex squid moratorium permit (Applicable from July 1, 1997,
until July 1, 2002.)
(A) Eligibility. A vessel is eligible for a moratorium permit to
fish for and retain Illex squid in excess of the incidental catch
allowance specified in paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section, if it
meets any of the following criteria:
(1) The vessel landed and sold 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex
squid on at least 5 separate trips between August 13, 1981, and August
13, 1993; or
(2) The vessel is replacing such a vessel and meets the
requirements of paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) of this section; or
(3) The vessel was under construction for, or was being rerigged
for, use in the directed fishery for Illex squid on August 13, 1993,
and the vessel landed and sold 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) or more of Illex
squid on at least 5 separate trips prior to December 31, 1994.
(B) Application/renewal restrictions. No one may apply for an
initial Illex squid moratorium permit for a vessel after:
(1) June 26, 1998; or
(2) The owner retires the vessel from the fishery.
(C) Replacement vessels. See paragraph (a)(3)(i)(C) of this
section.
(D) Appeal of denial of permit. See paragraph (a)(3)(i)(D) of this
section.
(iii) Squid/butterfish incidental catch permit. Any vessel of the
United States may obtain a permit to fish for or retain up to 2,500 lb
(1.13 mt) of Loligo squid or butterfish, or up to 5,000 lb (2.27 mt) of
Illex squid, as an incidental catch in another directed fishery. The
incidental catch allowance may be revised by the Regional Administrator
based upon a recommendation by the Council following the procedure set
forth in Sec. 648.21.
(iv) Atlantic mackerel permit. Any vessel of the United States may
obtain a permit to fish for or retain Atlantic mackerel in or from the
EEZ.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 648.13, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 648.13 Transfers at sea.
(a) Only vessels issued a Loligo and butterfish moratorium or Illex
moratorium permit under Sec. 648.4(a)(5) and vessels issued a mackerel
or squid/butterfish incidental catch permit and authorized in writing
by the Regional Administrator to do so, may transfer or attempt to
transfer Loligo, Illex, or butterfish from one vessel to another
vessel.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 648.14, paragraphs (p)(2) through (p)(8) are
redesignated as (p)(3) through (p)(9), a new paragraph (p)(2) is added,
and paragraphs (a)(75) and newly redesignated paragraph (p)(6) are
revised to read:
Sec. 648.14 Prohibitions.
(a) * * *
(75) Transfer Loligo, Illex, or butterfish within the EEZ, unless
the vessels participating in the transfer have been issued a valid
Loligo and butterfish or Illex moratorium permit and are transferring
the species for which the vessels are permitted or have a valid squid/
butterfish incidental catch permit and a letter of authorization from
the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
(p) * * *
(2) Possess more than the incidental catch allowance of Illex squid
unless
[[Page 28643]]
issued an Illex squid moratorium permit.
* * * * *
(6) Transfer squid or butterfish at sea to another vessel unless
that other vessel has been issued a valid Loligo and butterfish or
Illex moratorium permit and are transferring the species for which the
vessel is permitted or a valid squid/butterfish incidental catch permit
and a letter of authorization by the Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-13817 Filed 5-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
